4 ms·
Prove me wrong!
Fire is a living organism. Prove me wrong!
- lixtra 8y agoIn highschool we had the same example. Back then we required cells to call something living. A virus is not alive. I don’t see how to define organism without cells.
- NavnitG 8y agoEven scientists are unsure about the status of viruses. Why can't fire have the same unsure status? XD
- Finnucane 8y agoLiving organisms are a subset of fire—controlled exothermic processes. But when your exothermic process becomes uncontrollable, your life-force is used up quickly.
- NavnitG 8y agoDamn... That's deep. Totally agree.
- smt88 8y agoThis is a semantic argument. The outcome depends on how you define "living". Any definition that includes fire (i.e. hot air) is so broad that it makes the word "living" meaningless and useless. If you included fire, you'd perhaps have to include water or any other fluid.
- NavnitG 8y agoThe argument cannot be made for water as it does not respire or digest. Yes, the definition of life that fire fits in is broad. But it is still the definition of life.
- smt88 8y agoI don't know how you define "respire", but water dissolves and releases gases. Fire is a gas, so it can't "respire" the same way. It is just one gas or another. As for digestion, water is a powerful solvent that breaks many things down. Fire just heats them up, which may or may not change their chemical structure.
- cimmanom 8y agoLife is a system that decreases entropy locally. Fire increases entropy locally.
- NavnitG 8y agoInteresting...